Header Image
Macy Cheeks

Macy Cheeks

HR Analyst
Facebook Twitter Linkedin
Macy Cheeks, M.S., is an HR Analyst with the Compliance Team at DCI. Macy primarily supports clients on affirmative action planning and various EEO reports.

Prior to joining DCI, Macy worked as a Diversity and Inclusion (D&I) Specialist at The United States Postal Service Headquarters. During her time with USPS, Macy became familiar with federal compliance reporting, diversity metrics and the development of D&I trainings, workshops and seminars.

Macy earned a Master of Science degree in Industrial/Organizational Psychology from Emporia State University and a Bachelor of Science degree in Psychology from Howard University. During her graduate tenure, Macy focused on topics surrounding organizational diversity and employment law. Her Master’s thesis, measuring employee perceptions of D&I, won the Laurence C. Boylan Outstanding Master’s Thesis Award in 2015. She completed her graduate internship at the Corporation for Enterprise Development. In this internship, Macy was responsible for tracking annual compliance requirements and developing the organization’s affirmative action plan.

Macy Cheeks ’s Recent Posts

The EEOC delivered the final rule on affirmative action for individuals with disabilities in federal employment—an amendment to Section 501 regulations. This rule further clarifies the affirmative action obligations in recruitment, retention, and advancement of qualified individuals with disabilities. According to the rule, federal agencies must utilize programs and resources that identify potential applicants with disabilities from voluntary pipeline databases or by partnering with vocational rehabilitation agencies, for example. Agency staff must be trained and fully supported to provide applicants with reasonable accommodations, answer disability related questions, and oversee hiring programs. The regulation also requires efforts to ensure employees with disabilities have sufficient opportunities for advancement, through relevant training and mentoring programs. To assist in these efforts, the EEOC will provide the proper training and technical assistance to agency staff.

The rule raised the utilization goal percentage of individuals with disabilities from 7% to 12%. Additionally, it introduces a sub-goal of 2% for individuals with “targeted disabilities.” The rule also requires federal government agencies to provide personal assistance services (PAS) for employees with disabilities. PAS is defined as “non-medical services that help someone perform basic activities like eating and using the restroom.”

This rule does not change reporting for federal agencies, as no applicant or employee is compelled to answer the disability self-identification form. The EEOC expects agencies to conduct yearly workforce analyses to track progress towards goals. Additionally, failing to meet the 12% or 2% goal does not mean the EEOC will disapprove an agency’s plan. The EEOC states that the reason for this increase is to provide more opportunities for individuals with disabilities and be a model employer.  Along with empowering individuals with disabilities through the independence of employment, the EEOC believes that this ruling will reduce the amount of taxpayer funds allocated to disability benefits. Aiming for a timely implementation process, the rule will go into effect March 6, 2017, with an applicability date of January 3, 2018.

By Rachel Monroe, HR Analyst, and Macy Cheeks, HR Analyst, at DCI Consulting Group 

Facebook Twitter Linkedin

In recent months,  OFCCP has exhibited an increased interest in the underlying data that are key to federal contractors’ factor availability analyses. DCI has experienced an increase in requests for information focused on census occupation codes and external availability metrics. If it has been some time since you last looked at your factor availability set-up… you are not alone! However, don’t let it linger any longer! This set-up drives your analysis and may be questioned by OFCCP. As a refresher, below are a few items to consider as you conduct your review.

Census Occupation Codes

  • Revisit [2010] Census Occupation Code pairings to ensure they are up to date and as accurate as possible. Keep in mind that there may not be a perfect match for each job title because the census occupation listing is not exhaustive. However, try to identify the closest title that best aligns with the job duties of the position in question.

Weighting and Feeder Groups

  • Examine past data to identify trends in external and internal placement into each job group. Confirm feeder groups are still reasonable and active in the current year AAP roster.

Recruitment Areas

  • These areas should be reasonably customized for each job group. They should be free from overlap (e.g., including the U.S. and New York State as recruitment areas) and weighted based on your AAP locations. As a reminder, the regulations state that recruitment areas should not be drawn in a way that excludes minorities or women— it is best to identify them based on your typical recruitment practices.

By Yevonessa Hall, Consultant, and Macy Cheeks, HR Analyst at DCI Consulting Group 


Facebook Twitter Linkedin

On August 1, 2016, Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker, signed “an act to establish pay equity.” The law passed unanimously in the House and Senate to remedy the gender wage gap. It clarifies the previously ambiguous definition of comparable work. The definition now includes consideration of similar skill, effort, responsibility, and working conditions. In effect, this clarification holds employers to higher standards to provide equal pay.

Effective July 2018, the law also places unique limitations on Massachusetts employers by banning the screening of applicants based on wage or salary history. Specifically, it states that requiring an applicant to disclose prior wages, benefits, or salary history as a condition of moving forward in the application process is unlawful. In light of these limitations, employers with locations in Massachusetts should be aware of how their application and hiring efforts are conducted. It may become necessary for recruiters to undergo training so as not to violate these parameters.

Additionally, this law eliminates “pay secrecy” rules. This requirement is very similar to OFCCP’s pay secrecy rule and other state laws on pay secrecy that have been passed.  However, employers or employees are not required to answer questions about their compensation.

Finally, this law creates an affirmative defense for employers to encourage proactive analyses and compliance. Employers who conduct an appropriate “self-evaluation” of their compensation and use that analysis to “demonstrate reasonable progress” in reducing pay disparities may invoke this affirmative defense. While the law does not define the parameters for what a self-evaluation would look like, employers are permitted to design their own, as long as it is “reasonable in detail and scope.”

Many other states are currently following this trend of instituting tougher pay equity laws. It is incumbent upon employers to demonstrate their willingness to engage in “good faith efforts” to uphold the law. Going forward, employers should be mindful to involve legal counsel and compensation analysts in their review of their recruitment, hiring, and pay systems.

For more information on the Massachusetts Pay Equity Bill, the full text of the law can be found here.

By Macy Cheeks, HR Analyst, and Rachel Monroe, HR Analyst, at DCI Consulting Group

Facebook Twitter Linkedin


Really, I Come Here for the Food: Sex as a BFOQ for Restaurant Servers

Michael Aamodt, Principal Consultant at DCI Consulting Group, wrote an article featured in SIOP’s TIP publication, January 2017.